CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[colfax_m]

They are producing a product celebrating the event. To them that is endorsing the event, and they don't want to endorse it.

They are not arguing the PA point, although they should. Just because they are limiting THIS lawsuit to the website expression issues doesn't mean they don't want to fight the other things later.

It's called drawing a line somewhere, something SJW's refuse to do.

Point of sale? PA laws apply. Wedding cakes or photographs? Nope. Hotel room for the night? Yes. Hotel conference room for a SSM or a say a S&M expo? No. Attendees for a SSM ceremony or S&M expo at another venue staying in your hotel? Yes.

No rational person would consider that endorsement.

They're not arguing the PA point because the lawyers involved are trying to get the law declared unconstitutional. Either that or they know that there is no case to be made that they aren't a place of public accommodation.

You're trying to make distinctions with point of sale that are not relevant. The question isn't the manner in which the product is given but the supposed "endorsement" that the product produces.

 

[danielpalos]

The bullet that hits him disagrees, and war correspondents are always with a side.

Everyone at the ceremony participates in it as witnesses and celebrants.

The photographer isn't a celebrant. They're just there to take pictures.

Taking pictures is not a religious exercise. No more so than fixing a leaking pipe or preparing a hamburger.

They are celebrating along with the attendees by their mere presence.

Free exercise doesn't just involve actual religious exercises such as ceremonies.

And you still haven't answered by question about forcing Churches to minister to same sex weddings or not.

Churches don't operate on a for-the-Profit-of-Lucre basis.

Making money does not eliminate free exercise.

It does if we have to distinguish. The seller was and is always free to operate on a not-for-profit basis if they allege to feel that strongly about their morals instead of their bottom line.

 

[colfax_m]

Nope. As McDonalds is a PA and the guy making the burger is making hundreds just like it and never seeing it again once it goes in the box, the comparison is simply invalid.

Almost all of the people in question in these suits don't want to deny point of sale services at all, just contracted services for specific events they find morally objectionable.

It's perfectly valid. Who are you to say that the cook isn't using their artistry to produce the beautiful burger?

The photographer ships the couple their wedding album and they never see it again.

There's not a relevant distinction between contracted services and point of sale.

 

[martybegan]

A photographer is a public business and should serve all members of the public despite sexual orientation.

The photographer should not be compelled to make a blog post celebrating same sex marriage unless this is part of her product that is being sold to the couples. As it is a promotional item outside the service purchased by the couple, she should not be compelled to do so.

It is rational that a business can be compelled to serve people but also free to make that service terrible. For instance, it should be against the law to treat black people in a restaurant with utter disrespect in order to have them go somewhere else, that would be exploiting a loophole and in contradiction with the purpose of these laws. Similarly, the photographer would be engaging in discrimination by using her business to make same sex couples feel unwanted or unwelcome.

Why not just simply accept the fact that something as particular as wedding photography doesn't need government dictating people doing something against their religious beliefs?

Free exercise rights don't die off just because you sell something, and all businesses are not true public accommodations, despite what progressives want.

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Public accommodation is a public trust.

Not even close. PA's are not government functions.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about serious arguments or the law.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right under our form of Government.

Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States

US federal law doesn't trump free exercise without a compelling interest, and only then they must find the least intrusive means of interfering with free exercise.

And a photographer working on contract isn't a public accommodation.

The seller needs a permit or license to operate in public accommodation.

You have no "gospel Truth" only fallacy which is no better than bearing false witness (unto God).

And said permit or license requirements can't override free exercise.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right. The seller agreed to the terms for operating in public accommodation and declared to be operating on a for-profit (of Lucre) basis. Why bother to distinguish if it means nothing?

A wedding photographer is not a PA.

It is if the photographer had to apply for a business permit or license.

Government constructs that still cannot ignore constitutional rights.

So if a permit or license required you to use slaves at your establishment that would be OK?

That is your red herring not mine.

This is part of our supreme law of the land:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

People are entitled to free exercise, once again you make a statement and don't back it up.

 

[martybegan]

The bullet that hits him disagrees, and war correspondents are always with a side.

Everyone at the ceremony participates in it as witnesses and celebrants.

The photographer isn't a celebrant. They're just there to take pictures.

Taking pictures is not a religious exercise. No more so than fixing a leaking pipe or preparing a hamburger.

They are celebrating along with the attendees by their mere presence.

Free exercise doesn't just involve actual religious exercises such as ceremonies.

And you still haven't answered by question about forcing Churches to minister to same sex weddings or not.

Churches don't operate on a for-the-Profit-of-Lucre basis.

Making money does not eliminate free exercise.

It does if we have to distinguish. The seller was and is always free to operate on a not-for-profit basis if they allege to feel that strongly about their morals instead of their bottom line.

Profit or not for profit has only to do with taxes, not with one's right to free exercise or to engage in commerce.

 

[danielpalos]

A photographer is a public business and should serve all members of the public despite sexual orientation.

The photographer should not be compelled to make a blog post celebrating same sex marriage unless this is part of her product that is being sold to the couples. As it is a promotional item outside the service purchased by the couple, she should not be compelled to do so.

It is rational that a business can be compelled to serve people but also free to make that service terrible. For instance, it should be against the law to treat black people in a restaurant with utter disrespect in order to have them go somewhere else, that would be exploiting a loophole and in contradiction with the purpose of these laws. Similarly, the photographer would be engaging in discrimination by using her business to make same sex couples feel unwanted or unwelcome.

Why not just simply accept the fact that something as particular as wedding photography doesn't need government dictating people doing something against their religious beliefs?

Free exercise rights don't die off just because you sell something, and all businesses are not true public accommodations, despite what progressives want.

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Public accommodation is a public trust.

Not even close. PA's are not government functions.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about serious arguments or the law.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right under our form of Government.

Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States

US federal law doesn't trump free exercise without a compelling interest, and only then they must find the least intrusive means of interfering with free exercise.

And a photographer working on contract isn't a public accommodation.

The seller needs a permit or license to operate in public accommodation.

You have no "gospel Truth" only fallacy which is no better than bearing false witness (unto God).

And said permit or license requirements can't override free exercise.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right. The seller agreed to the terms for operating in public accommodation and declared to be operating on a for-profit (of Lucre) basis. Why bother to distinguish if it means nothing?

A wedding photographer is not a PA.

It is if the photographer had to apply for a business permit or license.

Government constructs that still cannot ignore constitutional rights.

So if a permit or license required you to use slaves at your establishment that would be OK?

That is your red herring not mine.

This is part of our supreme law of the land:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

People are entitled to free exercise, once again you make a statement and don't back it up.

Not if they have to choose their bottom line over morals. Only right wingers feel entitled to right wing fantasy where they are Always Right.

 

[danielpalos]

The bullet that hits him disagrees, and war correspondents are always with a side.

Everyone at the ceremony participates in it as witnesses and celebrants.

The photographer isn't a celebrant. They're just there to take pictures.

Taking pictures is not a religious exercise. No more so than fixing a leaking pipe or preparing a hamburger.

They are celebrating along with the attendees by their mere presence.

Free exercise doesn't just involve actual religious exercises such as ceremonies.

And you still haven't answered by question about forcing Churches to minister to same sex weddings or not.

Churches don't operate on a for-the-Profit-of-Lucre basis.

Making money does not eliminate free exercise.

It does if we have to distinguish. The seller was and is always free to operate on a not-for-profit basis if they allege to feel that strongly about their morals instead of their bottom line.

Profit or not for profit has only to do with taxes, not with one's right to free exercise or to engage in commerce.

Link? Nobody takes right wingers seriously about Any Thing serious or the law.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. As McDonalds is a PA and the guy making the burger is making hundreds just like it and never seeing it again once it goes in the box, the comparison is simply invalid.

Almost all of the people in question in these suits don't want to deny point of sale services at all, just contracted services for specific events they find morally objectionable.

It's perfectly valid. Who are you to say that the cook isn't using their artistry to produce the beautiful burger?

The photographer ships the couple their wedding album and they never see it again.

There's not a relevant distinction between contracted services and point of sale.

It's an attempted stretch, and a failed one at that.

The photographer has to attend the event, witness the event, produce artistic products from the event with their name attached to it.

There is a very relevant distinction between the two, one the people in question are willing to compromise on.

It's your side that refuses to compromise.

 

[martybegan]

The bullet that hits him disagrees, and war correspondents are always with a side.

Everyone at the ceremony participates in it as witnesses and celebrants.

The photographer isn't a celebrant. They're just there to take pictures.

Taking pictures is not a religious exercise. No more so than fixing a leaking pipe or preparing a hamburger.

They are celebrating along with the attendees by their mere presence.

Free exercise doesn't just involve actual religious exercises such as ceremonies.

And you still haven't answered by question about forcing Churches to minister to same sex weddings or not.

Churches don't operate on a for-the-Profit-of-Lucre basis.

Making money does not eliminate free exercise.

It does if we have to distinguish. The seller was and is always free to operate on a not-for-profit basis if they allege to feel that strongly about their morals instead of their bottom line.

Profit or not for profit has only to do with taxes, not with one's right to free exercise or to engage in commerce.

Link? Nobody takes right wingers seriously about Any Thing serious or the law.

It's common knowledge, no link needed.

It's all part of the tax code at both the State and Federal level.

 

[martybegan]

A photographer is a public business and should serve all members of the public despite sexual orientation.

The photographer should not be compelled to make a blog post celebrating same sex marriage unless this is part of her product that is being sold to the couples. As it is a promotional item outside the service purchased by the couple, she should not be compelled to do so.

It is rational that a business can be compelled to serve people but also free to make that service terrible. For instance, it should be against the law to treat black people in a restaurant with utter disrespect in order to have them go somewhere else, that would be exploiting a loophole and in contradiction with the purpose of these laws. Similarly, the photographer would be engaging in discrimination by using her business to make same sex couples feel unwanted or unwelcome.

Why not just simply accept the fact that something as particular as wedding photography doesn't need government dictating people doing something against their religious beliefs?

Free exercise rights don't die off just because you sell something, and all businesses are not true public accommodations, despite what progressives want.

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Public accommodation is a public trust.

Not even close. PA's are not government functions.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about serious arguments or the law.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right under our form of Government.

Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States

US federal law doesn't trump free exercise without a compelling interest, and only then they must find the least intrusive means of interfering with free exercise.

And a photographer working on contract isn't a public accommodation.

The seller needs a permit or license to operate in public accommodation.

You have no "gospel Truth" only fallacy which is no better than bearing false witness (unto God).

And said permit or license requirements can't override free exercise.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right. The seller agreed to the terms for operating in public accommodation and declared to be operating on a for-profit (of Lucre) basis. Why bother to distinguish if it means nothing?

A wedding photographer is not a PA.

It is if the photographer had to apply for a business permit or license.

Government constructs that still cannot ignore constitutional rights.

So if a permit or license required you to use slaves at your establishment that would be OK?

That is your red herring not mine.

This is part of our supreme law of the land:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

People are entitled to free exercise, once again you make a statement and don't back it up.

Not if they have to choose their bottom line over morals. Only right wingers feel entitled to right wing fantasy where they are Always Right.

The choice is being forced on them by the government, against the Constitution.

 

[colfax_m]

Nope. As McDonalds is a PA and the guy making the burger is making hundreds just like it and never seeing it again once it goes in the box, the comparison is simply invalid.

Almost all of the people in question in these suits don't want to deny point of sale services at all, just contracted services for specific events they find morally objectionable.

It's perfectly valid. Who are you to say that the cook isn't using their artistry to produce the beautiful burger?

The photographer ships the couple their wedding album and they never see it again.

There's not a relevant distinction between contracted services and point of sale.

It's an attempted stretch, and a failed one at that.

The photographer has to attend the event, witness the event, produce artistic products from the event with their name attached to it.

There is a very relevant distinction between the two, one the people in question are willing to compromise on.

It's your side that refuses to compromise.

A waiter has to attend the date, witness the date, provide suggestions to what wine to pair for the sacrilegious heathens.

It's perfectly analogous for the waiter to say that they are endorsing this same sex couple.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. As McDonalds is a PA and the guy making the burger is making hundreds just like it and never seeing it again once it goes in the box, the comparison is simply invalid.

Almost all of the people in question in these suits don't want to deny point of sale services at all, just contracted services for specific events they find morally objectionable.

It's perfectly valid. Who are you to say that the cook isn't using their artistry to produce the beautiful burger?

The photographer ships the couple their wedding album and they never see it again.

There's not a relevant distinction between contracted services and point of sale.

It's an attempted stretch, and a failed one at that.

The photographer has to attend the event, witness the event, produce artistic products from the event with their name attached to it.

There is a very relevant distinction between the two, one the people in question are willing to compromise on.

It's your side that refuses to compromise.

A waiter has to attend the date, witness the date, provide suggestions to what wine to pair for the sacrilegious heathens.

It's perfectly analogous for the waiter to say that they are endorsing this same sex couple.

Nope. A waiter also works for a company, and the company decides what they do or do not.

The photographer is their own company. the comparison is therefore invalid.

 

[colfax_m]

Nope. A waiter also works for a company, and the company decides what they do or do not.

The photographer is their own company. the comparison is therefore invalid.

Never been to a restaurant that the owner does their own service? I have. Great places.

Regardless, service cannot be denied. There is no fundamental difference. The restaurant and it's owner would be "endorsing" the relationship just the same as the photographer.

 

[progressive hunter]

Nope. A waiter also works for a company, and the company decides what they do or do not.

The photographer is their own company. the comparison is therefore invalid.

Never been to a restaurant that the owner does their own service? I have. Great places.

Regardless, service cannot be denied. There is no fundamental difference. The restaurant and it's owner would be "endorsing" the relationship just the same as the photographer.

did you know its fascist to force someone to do something they dont want to do???

 

[danielpalos]

The bullet that hits him disagrees, and war correspondents are always with a side.

Everyone at the ceremony participates in it as witnesses and celebrants.

The photographer isn't a celebrant. They're just there to take pictures.

Taking pictures is not a religious exercise. No more so than fixing a leaking pipe or preparing a hamburger.

They are celebrating along with the attendees by their mere presence.

Free exercise doesn't just involve actual religious exercises such as ceremonies.

And you still haven't answered by question about forcing Churches to minister to same sex weddings or not.

Churches don't operate on a for-the-Profit-of-Lucre basis.

Making money does not eliminate free exercise.

It does if we have to distinguish. The seller was and is always free to operate on a not-for-profit basis if they allege to feel that strongly about their morals instead of their bottom line.

Profit or not for profit has only to do with taxes, not with one's right to free exercise or to engage in commerce.

Link? Nobody takes right wingers seriously about Any Thing serious or the law.

It's common knowledge, no link needed.

It's all part of the tax code at both the State and Federal level.

How about this?

Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."

 

[danielpalos]

The choice is being forced on them by the government, against the Constitution.

No one is forcing the seller to operate in public accommodation instead of private accommodation on a for-profit basis. The seller made that rational choice under our form of Capitalism not social moralism.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. A waiter also works for a company, and the company decides what they do or do not.

The photographer is their own company. the comparison is therefore invalid.

Never been to a restaurant that the owner does their own service? I have. Great places.

Regardless, service cannot be denied. There is no fundamental difference. The restaurant and it's owner would be "endorsing" the relationship just the same as the photographer.

The would only be endorsing if they contracted to host the SSM wedding, something I think they should be able to do.

A gay couple walks into the place for dinner? PA laws protect them.

 

[martybegan]

The bullet that hits him disagrees, and war correspondents are always with a side.

Everyone at the ceremony participates in it as witnesses and celebrants.

The photographer isn't a celebrant. They're just there to take pictures.

Taking pictures is not a religious exercise. No more so than fixing a leaking pipe or preparing a hamburger.

They are celebrating along with the attendees by their mere presence.

Free exercise doesn't just involve actual religious exercises such as ceremonies.

And you still haven't answered by question about forcing Churches to minister to same sex weddings or not.

Churches don't operate on a for-the-Profit-of-Lucre basis.

Making money does not eliminate free exercise.

It does if we have to distinguish. The seller was and is always free to operate on a not-for-profit basis if they allege to feel that strongly about their morals instead of their bottom line.

Profit or not for profit has only to do with taxes, not with one's right to free exercise or to engage in commerce.

Link? Nobody takes right wingers seriously about Any Thing serious or the law.

It's common knowledge, no link needed.

It's all part of the tax code at both the State and Federal level.

How about this?

Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."

A photographer is not a PA.

 

[martybegan]

The choice is being forced on them by the government, against the Constitution.

No one is forcing the seller to operate in public accommodation instead of private accommodation on a for-profit basis. The seller made that rational choice under our form of Capitalism not social moralism.

The government is forcing them to accept working a SSM ceremony or stop doing business.

Massive fines = force.

 

[danielpalos]

The bullet that hits him disagrees, and war correspondents are always with a side.

Everyone at the ceremony participates in it as witnesses and celebrants.

The photographer isn't a celebrant. They're just there to take pictures.

Taking pictures is not a religious exercise. No more so than fixing a leaking pipe or preparing a hamburger.

They are celebrating along with the attendees by their mere presence.

Free exercise doesn't just involve actual religious exercises such as ceremonies.

And you still haven't answered by question about forcing Churches to minister to same sex weddings or not.

Churches don't operate on a for-the-Profit-of-Lucre basis.

Making money does not eliminate free exercise.

It does if we have to distinguish. The seller was and is always free to operate on a not-for-profit basis if they allege to feel that strongly about their morals instead of their bottom line.

Profit or not for profit has only to do with taxes, not with one's right to free exercise or to engage in commerce.

Link? Nobody takes right wingers seriously about Any Thing serious or the law.

It's common knowledge, no link needed.

It's all part of the tax code at both the State and Federal level.

How about this?

Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."

A photographer is not a PA.

Yes, especially if renting or leasing, etc., any commercial space.